• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Rockwell pre-ATF and ATF studies

The Artist

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
612
Reaction score
211
Thanks.

GIGO got me again with the search. Maybe a moderator could merge this into the Rockwell pre-ATF / ATF thread.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,922
Reaction score
564
GeorgeA said:
This was one of the ASTEI (pre-ATF) concepts shown in the famous 2/4/79 AW&ST issue on USAF R&D.
damn. has someone a copy or scan of this article? pveazze
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
195
flateric said:
GeorgeA said:
This was one of the ASTEI (pre-ATF) concepts shown in the famous 2/4/79 AW&ST issue on USAF R&D.
damn. has someone a copy or scan of this article? pveazze
Article? It was damn near the entire issue. Many of the pics I first posted when I joined here were from that issue. From the Rockwell and Boeing bomber concepts to a bunch of fighter concepts, including Grumman. It was the ultimate fan boy drool issue of Aviation Week ever published.(fixed ;) )
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,051
Reaction score
2,438
[pedant]Penultimate means "Next to last", so what the ultimate fan-boy AWST issue?[/pedant]
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,025
Reaction score
1,067
overscan said:
[pedant]Penultimate means "Next to last", so what the ultimate fan-boy AWST issue?[/pedant]
Pumpkins seeds or Blackstar. ;D
 

famvburg

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
323
Reaction score
5
Thanks for the 3 view! I have been after more info on this design since the front view was shown in AWST in '81, well, I found it in the early '90s. Dan Raymer's book has an artist concept of it on the ground as well as I think the in flight art. I had even emailed Mr. Raymer about the front view being the same design and he said it was and I still found it hard to believe tho it came directly from him. I can't wait to build a model of this thanks to the 3 view and I still have trouble envisioning the front view as being the same aircraft in the side and top view but it is. Love the design and thanks again for the 3 view. 36,000 lbs. TGOW seems a little light to me tho.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
195
I too remember this from that old Aviation Week. Thanks for posting this guys, for filling another hole in my what if files.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
982
Reaction score
27
was this the final submission design and if it's not, did rockwell submit a stealthed up version of it or something else drastically different?
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,922
Reaction score
564
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Ah, cool! Aviation Week? What was the issue date?
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,258
Reaction score
435
The Artist said:
I don't remember seeing this one before I found this book today and running some searches here has not turned up anything. Has anyone got any additional information on this?

I found this in Airplanes of the Future by Don Berliner, Learner Publications, 1987

Grumman or Rockwell???


A great picture at Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cosmolutz/8697685570/sizes/l/
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,258
Reaction score
435
The Artist said:
I don't remember seeing this one before I found this book today and running some searches here has not turned up anything. Has anyone got any additional information on this?


I found this in Airplanes of the Future by Don Berliner, Learner Publications, 1987

Grumman or Rockwell???


A great picture at Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cosmolutz/8697685570/sizes/l/
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
25,904
Reaction score
2,879
It's Rockwell my dear Rolf,great find.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,051
Reaction score
2,438
Rockwell AFW (Active Flexible Wing) wind tunnel models (higher res/better copies)

The wind tunnel model is shown installed in the Langley Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel and
is a preliminary design version of a Rockwell fighter concept. Five outboard wing
panel geometries were tested: a 48deg leading-edge sweep baseline; a 55deg leading-edge
sweep wing with a camber distribution biased toward a maneuver lift coefficient for
Mach 1.6; an uncambered 55deg reference wing; and two redesigned 48deg leading-edge
sweep wing panels (multi-operating point wings - subsonic, transonic, supersonic ) .
The redesigned 48deg wings represented a low twist cruise wing (M = 1.5) and a high
twist maneuver concept (M = 1.6). Testing was performed at Mach numbers of 1.5 to
2.5. Both longitudinal and lateral aerodynamic force characteristics were
measured. Surface pressure data were obtained at Mach numbers of 1.5 to 1.8 for the
55deg cambered wing and the 48deg low and high twist wings.
 

Attachments

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
10
Sukhoi even to this day has gone so heavily towards the Rockwell approach, the Flanker and Pakfa are it's cousins. There are trade-offs but the Rockwell approach seems to make sense from an internal weapon carrying requirement. Was it the simple fact that Northrop and Lockheed had to themselves not borrow too much from Rockwell in their own proposals?
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,051
Reaction score
2,438

Attachments

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,051
Reaction score
2,438
flateric said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Ah, cool! Aviation Week? What was the issue date?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/6-1986-PUB-NORTH-AMERICAN-ROCKWELL-ATF-ADVANCED-TACTICAL-FIGHTER-ORIGINAL-AD-/301171239042?pt=JG_FR_Collections_Aviation&hash=item461f346882


Presumably June 1986
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,690
Reaction score
779
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
PaulMM (Overscan) said:

Thanks Grigori - did you notice it was an Israeli Rockwell ATF...
While an entertaining notion, it's still a USAF ATF. What you're seeing as the Israeli Star of David is still the five-pointed USAF star... just a pale blue, surrounded by *very* pale gray USAF "wings."
 

Attachments

Kryptid

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
275
Reaction score
7
Website
www.facebook.com
donnage99 said:
was this the final submission design and if it's not, did rockwell submit a stealthed up version of it or something else drastically different?
There was indeed a final, low-observable design submitted. According to Dr. Dan Raymer (the original designer), there was a lot of data gathered about the original design and they didn't want to have to discard all of it in the process of producing a brand-new design. For that reason, they tried to keep the final design as close as reasonably possible to the original whilst allowing for a reduced radar signature. From the top, the aircraft's silhouette remained practically identical. There were some changes, however. The engines were pulled more closely together and the inlets were placed along the sides of a reshaped forward fuselage. The engines were given a two-paddle nozzle system in place of single paddle and were rotated at ~45 degrees on their side (I'm pleased that there now seem to be photos available of this system as posted by PaulMM!). The vertical tails, now connected to the angled nacelles, had their cant angle increased to 45 degrees. Instead of pitch-control flaps inboard of the engines, they now lay outboard of them. I believe the nose was chined as well.

This information came from Dr. Raymer in his personal biography and also in E-mail exchanges between him and myself. Unfortunately, no official drawings or photographs of the final submission seem to have made it out to the public...yet. However, there is a thread somewhere around here with attempts to visualize it (including CG renders).
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
982
Reaction score
27
Thank you both. Much appreciated
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,051
Reaction score
2,438
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Nice - resized and attached.


Identified as Rockwell LLWDS study

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1981/1981%20-%201535.PDF

Rockwell researches top-mounted weapons

ROCKWELL'S North American Aircraft Division is to investigate a topmounted low-level weapons delivery system (LLWDS) under a $1-6 million USAF contract. The weapons, each a lifting body, will be carried on and released from the top of the aircraft's rear fuselage in high-threat target zones, at attack heights below 200ft.

The lifting-body munitions will be in the l,0001b-weight class. On release they will climb to attack altitude and then eject either cluster munitions or single terminally guided bombs. The principal advantage of
LLWDS is that the relatively smooth airflow over the aircraft's top surface makes a more reliable and predictable weapon release possible, out of the wing downwash. Other advantages are the very-low-level delivery and the lower drag and radar crosssection of the carrier to ground-based search radars. Rockwell will design and build an aircraft mockup to test the idea on a rocket sled at Mach 1.2.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,180
Reaction score
1,450
Seems like the LLWDS platform was also intended to leverage Rockwell's Active Flexible Wing research that Overscan mentioned earlier in the thread.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,241
Reaction score
376
Rockwell's pre-ATF designs from TsAGI's Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya (No.13, 1984):
 

Attachments

.Tyler H

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
fightingirish said:
The Artist said:
I don't remember seeing this one before I found this book today and running some searches here has not turned up anything. Has anyone got any additional information on this?


I found this in Airplanes of the Future by Don Berliner, Learner Publications, 1987

Grumman or Rockwell???


A great picture at Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cosmolutz/8697685570/sizes/l/
Does anyone have more information on the drone/missile things that seem to be conformally mounted on the top? Is it a concept for a stealthily mounted missile without internal weapons bays?

Tyler

Edit: On second examination they appear to be unpowered, perhaps they are bombs rather then missiles?
 

The Artist

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
612
Reaction score
211
And where is my comment that is quoted here? This gets to be a problem when threads get broken up and parts shifted around.


.Tyler H said:
fightingirish said:
The Artist said:
I don't remember seeing this one before I found this book today and running some searches here has not turned up anything. Has anyone got any additional information on this?


I found this in Airplanes of the Future by Don Berliner, Learner Publications, 1987

Grumman or Rockwell???


A great picture at Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cosmolutz/8697685570/sizes/l/
Does anyone have more information on the drone/missile things that seem to be conformally mounted on the top? Is it a concept for a stealthily mounted missile without internal weapons bays?

Tyler

Edit: On second examination they appear to be unpowered, perhaps they are bombs rather then missiles?
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,051
Reaction score
2,438
Click on the title of any quote e.g. (Quote from: The Artist on November 27, 2011, 05:42:00 pm) and it takes you there.

Its was the correct topic (Rockwell ATF & Pre ATF), where I've moved the rest of this discussion.


The alternative to moving, splitting etc is leaving posts in topics they don't belong in. I don't really see this is a problem.
 

The Artist

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
612
Reaction score
211
Thanks. I didn't know that little trick. (I don't spend much time at sites like this. A lot of my on-line time is spent doing art searches.) I agree that with a way to get to the original entry, moving and splitting is not a problem.
 
Top